Broncos goalline stand, with Chiefs 1st and goal at the 3 was huge. Without that, the atmosphere at the end of the game changes completely. Not to mention two makeable fg thathat the Chiefs didnt even try.

The chiefs not attempting two field goals has nothing to do with us "giving all we could give"'. I still dont understand that statement, especially given the fact that we have an entire thread dedicated to how we looked like we were coasting.

The chiefs not attempting two field goals has nothing to do with us "giving all we could give"'. I still dont understand that statement, especially given the fact that we have an entire thread dedicated to how we looked like we were coasting.

Lol. Broncos definitely weren't coasting. Not sure what game you were watching. Manning has already stated that the Broncos were looking to be extremely balanced this game. To fans like you, it might seem like the Broncos were "coasting", because they ran the ball a lot. In reality, that's not the case.

Not only did the Broncos running game struggle to gain yardage against 6 men in the box, but Broncos WR's struggled to get open, catch the ball, and run for YAC against the Chiefs secondary. Acting like moving the ball and scoring against the Chiefs is easy or "coasting", is laughable.

If you don't understand why attempting makeable FG's (instead of punting), could possibly increase a teams chances of winning, then I don't really know what to tell you.

The other thing to note here is DEN ate up KC's defense at will, when they did not shoot themselves in the foot. DEN's Drive Success Rate (DSR) was 10/12 or .833 when they were trying to pick up a first down. That is HIGHER than their league leading .792% DSR coming into the game. KC was only giving up .592% coming into the game.

KC's points per drive was a terrific .96 coming into the game, but was at 2.25 per drive for this game. DEN's was 3.16 coming into the game. And, it was very clear the points DEN left on the field and simply quit trying to get late in the game in order to win. Contrast that with DEN needing to score so much in the fourth quarter previously, and them holding a 17 point 3 possession lead after their first possession of the fourth quarter.

All that with KC having a bye week to prepare for DEN as well....

So, while I would not say that KC's defense was "exposed", they certainly were nowhere near as effective as they had been coming into the game.

It was a 58 yard FG. I mean, I guess technically that's a makable field goal for KC, but it's not exactly a high percentage kick. Personally think KC should have went for it. Punting down 2 touchdowns, with 12 minutes to go was the worse of their possible options.

That and kicking the field goal on 4th and 1, were head scratching moves for the Chiefs.

It was a 58 yard FG. I mean, I guess technically that's a makable field goal for KC, but it's not exactly a high percentage kick. Personally think KC should have went for it. Punting down 2 touchdowns, with 12 minutes to go was the worse of their possible options.

That and kicking the field goal on 4th and 1, were head scratching moves for the Chiefs.

But a 58 yarder missed puts the Broncos at the 48, and only roughly 15 yards from a 45 yarder for Prater. In hind sight it was a probable mistake, especially down 2 TDs. But denvers D was also playing well, and going for it was at best 50-50. Same situation...Fail and Denver is almost in range for the FG. Reid went with his best side of the Team ( D) and punted.

Lol. Broncos definitely weren't coasting. Not sure what game you were watching. Manning has already stated that the Broncos were looking to be extremely balanced this game. To fans like you, it might seem like the Broncos were "coasting", because they ran the ball a lot. In reality, that's not the case.

But a 58 yarder missed puts the Broncos at the 48, and only roughly 15 yards from a 45 yarder for Prater. In hind sight it was a probable mistake, especially down 2 TDs. But denvers D was also playing well, and going for it was at best 50-50. Same situation...Fail and Denver is almost in range for the FG. Reid went with his best side of the Team ( D) and punted.

I think playing conservative would have been okay in a closer game. But being down two scores, you can't afford to keep giving Manning chances to run the clock down and put more points on the board.

I'd have went for it, because KC needed touchdowns. Their offense sucks, but being down by two scores they needed to try to give their offense a chance to come back.

I disagree with jjprice's position that the fg would have changed the game, as I think Denver approaches their following drive differently if they are up 11, instead of 14. I also don't think they play the same way defensively if it is a two possession game. It's unlikely KC marches down the field so quickly and scores a TD. Guess it's possible, but they only had one TD drive before that and had been stymied most of the game. Even more so when the ball was in Alex Smith's hands

Without a remarkable goal line stand by the Broncos, the chefs would have been 6 down, with the ball, and time running down.

Weather and venue, also could make the outcome a lot different in 2 weeks.

They made the remarkable goal line stand did they not? And again, don't see how you can think Denver plays the same way defensively if they are up 13, instead of 17 points.

You could easily point to 2 or 3 plays that KC COULD have made that would have changed the game, but you could do the same for the Broncos. A more disciplined game (less penalties), and it could have been a lot worse then 27-10 with 5 minutes to go.

Once you're talking about not only KC making 2-3 plays, but taking away 2-3 plays that the Broncos made, it really comes off as a rather large stretch.

They made the remarkable goal line stand did they not? And again, don't see how you can think Denver plays the same way defensively if they are up 13, instead of 17 points.

You could easily point to 2 or 3 plays that KC COULD have made that would have changed the game, but you could do the same for the Broncos. A more disciplined game (less penalties), and it could have been a lot worse then 27-10 with 5 minutes to go.

Once you're talking about not only KC making 2-3 plays, but taking away 2-3 plays that the Broncos made, it really comes off as a rather large stretch.

The real difference between good and Great teams in the NFL, is making 3-4 more impact plays a game than your opponent. KC's defense is the only reason they have been mentioned in the great category at this point by anyone.

When KC faced a truly great team in all three phases of the game, and their defense came up empty with TO's and big plays they reverted to just being good. For KC to win in Arrowhead, they are going to have to have a much better plan than they did in DEN and they are going to have to execute it flawlessly, with DEN making huge mistakes. It could happen, but it would be DEN beating themselves much more than KC Being a great team.

Incorrect. It comes across as a rather large stretch to say the Broncos "exposed" the chiefs defense. Or that the Broncos "coasted" to victory.

As usual, a handful of plays made the difference.

I think they exposed them somewhat. They gave up 10 more points then their previous season high. Only reason I wouldn't say it was a complete expose was KC hasn't exactly played great defensively their previous couple games. Gave up a ton of yards, and failed to get to the QB for the most part.

Did Denver embarrass them? No. The Broncos had to earn it and play for 60 minutes, but it wasn't a particularly close game. Hell, it was the most comfortable game at the start of the 4th quarter since the Eagles game

I don't really get how this was game was significantly closer then the Broncos win over Oakland, and nobody was arguing they were 2 or 3 plays away

Could the Broncos lose in KC? Yes, but it's much, much more likely they lose to New England, even with the Patriots maybe down to their #4 and #5 CB's

Incorrect. It comes across as a rather large stretch to say the Broncos "exposed" the chiefs defense. Or that the Broncos "coasted" to victory.

As usual, a handful of plays made the difference.

The bills Oline has been bad all year yet zero sacks. Mannings uniform was clean. He didnt even fall down. You could say it was Mannings quick delivery times. But Tuels delivery is not quick. Campbell was sacked only one time. Chiefs vaulted pass rush has been non existent last 3 games. Without Turnovers that defense gets strained by an offense that cannot stop punting. They become vulnerable. No pass rush and it's not so great.

In this league, it's impossible for any D to be as great as the one's before the rule changes.

The rules drastically favor the offense nowadays compared to before, TE's are now basically another WR in 2 sets that are athletic and extremely difficult to stop, teams are faster (no huddle) than before as they have run it that way quite a bit and last of all, coaches are just smarter about offense now as the game has evolved so much for the offensive side.

Do you really think the great defenses of old had a #3 DB good enough to cover WR's like Welker or Cobb?
Do you think think the great defenses of old would do well having to cover passes all the time going against a no huddle?
Do you really think the great defenses of old would be able to stop an elite QB, 3-4 elite/very good WR's AND a very good TE like the Broncos and 2010 Packers had?

I have a hard time believing even those D's could do what they did before in today's NFL.

Honest question: do you think that if the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens would be able to stop the 2013 Broncos, 2010 Packers or 2007 Patriots from scoring at least 30 points?

yes, i honestly think the 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears would hold the 2013 Broncos to 14 points or less in a dome, 10 points or less outdoor in the cold. Thats what the best defense of all time do, shut good teams down completely. Which it is why it is disrespectful to those defenses to put the 2013 Chiefs in the same conversation.

Honest question: do you think that if the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens would be able to stop the 2013 Broncos, 2010 Packers or 2007 Patriots from scoring at least 30 points?

Ravens for sure. Bears I think Denver could score on that 46 defense. The DB's back then weren't as good of athletes. I do know one thing is that this years Queefs are nowhere near as good as the 2000 Ravens.

yes, i honestly think the 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears would hold the 2013 Broncos to 14 points or less in a dome, 10 points or less outdoor in the cold. Thats what the best defense of all time do, shut good teams down completely. Which it is why it is disrespectful to those defenses to put the 2013 Chiefs in the same conversation.

and if Manning had a high ankle sprain at age 37, i might say we only get 3 field goals against those defenses.